Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
In this paper a new observer is introduced to estimate the Crystal Size Distribution (CSD) only from the measurements of the solute concentration, temperature and a model of the growth rate. No model of the nucleation rate is needed. This approach is based on the use of a Kazantzis-Kravaris/Luenberger observer which exponentially estimates functionals of the CSD. Then, the full state is estimated by means of a Tikhonov regularization procedure. Numerical simulations are provided. Our approach relies on an in nite-dimensional observer, contrarily to the usual moment based observers. Keywords: Observers, Crystallization, Crystal Size Distribution, Tikhonov regularization, Solute concentration 1 Introduction Crystallization is one of the oldest and major processes used in industry (chemical, pharmaceutical, food, etc.) to produce, purify or separate solid compounds or products [4]. This unit operation aims to produce solid crystals with well de ned speci cations including (among others) the Crytal Size Distribution (CSD) which is of critical importance. At the industrial scale, the CSD is neither well controlled nor monitored during the crystallization process and a grinding step is usually performed before delivering the nal product. Hence, a key point is the real-time control and the \online " monitoring of the CSD during the crystallization operation in order to avoid the grinding step. Unfortunately, the CSD is nowadays not directly measurable in real-time by existing sensors. Nevertheless, the Process Analytical Technologies (PATs) allow us to get access to real time information such as the solute concentration based on the Attenuated Total Re ectance Fourier Transform InfraRed spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR) and the Chord Length Distribution based on the Focused Beam Re ectance Measurement (FBRM ). FBRM is commonly employed in pharmaceutical industries to detect online some process deviations. Note however that its use for online estimation of the CSD remains challenging [24, 27]. Obtaining an online CSD estimation from the solute concentration, temperature and a growth rate model only is an interesting problem which is the purpose of the present paper. To obtain online state estimation for dynamical systems from measured outputs, control engineers usually employ asymptotic state observers. Designing state observer for complex dynamical systems is an active research area. Some studies are devoted to nonlinear dynamics (see [2] and references therein). Others consider in nite dimensional systems (see for instance [28]). arXiv:2006.06992v1 [math.OC] 12 Jun 2020 Designing observers for a batch crystallization process has been addressed in recent years by several researchers (see for instance [17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 29, 30]). These studies are based on spatial discretization of the PDE (see [25] or [30]) or more frequently on moments analysis (see survey [18]). However, the moment based approaches suer from several drawbacks: (i) the numerical moment values exhibit a very large dierence in their order of magnitude [10]. Consequently, a small numerical/experimental error has a signi cant impact on the moments estimation. The error will then be propagated during the computation of the moment transport equations [7]; (ii) the recovering of the CSD from a nite number of its moments is still an open area of research in mathematics and highly dependant of the moments quality [13, 23]. Furthermore, the moment based observers depend on the knowledge of the nucleation rate which may be tricky to model. All these reasons may explain the diculty to develop an ecient algorithm following this route. In this paper, another approach is adopted to describe the CSD without using its moments. Moreover, a key point of the proposed approach is that no information is needed on the nucleation rate. In the rst part of the paper, we recall the Kazantzis-Kravaris/Luenberger methodology for observer design which has been introduced in its original form in [14] for linear systems and adapted for nonlinear dynamics in [1] and [11]. Section 3 is devoted to the modeling of the batch crystallization process. Finally some simulation results are presented in Section 4 which highlight the practical interest of the suggested methodology. 2 Kazantzis-Kravaris/Luenberger observer methodology In control engineering, the algorithm which is employed to reconstruct online missing data on a partially measured dynamical process is named an observer. Observer design for nonlinear dynamical systems is a very active research area and has been the subject of numerous studies in the past 40 years (see [2] for a recent survey on this topic). One very ecient way to design observers for nite-dimensional linear as well as nonlinear dynamical systems is the Kazantzis-Karavis/Lunberger (KKL) observer methodology. It is an approach which follows Luenberger original idea in [14] where asymptotic observers for linear systems were introduced for the rst time. The approach of [14] is somehow dierent from the way Luenberger observers are introduced nowadays (which follows Luenberger second paper on observers [15]). It has been recently employed by Kazantzis and Kravaris in [11] to design local observers for nite-dimensional nonlinear dynamics based on Luenberger original idea in a local version. We hope it may also be fruitful in the context of distributed parameter systems. In this section we adapt to the context of linear abstract Cauchy problem the KKL observer methodology which is a two-steps design procedure. In the rst step we consider the problem of estimating a function of the state. The reconstruction of the overall state of the system is obtained in the second step by inverting this function. 2.1 Step 1: reconstruction of a function of the state As shown in [1] and [3], it is always possible to exponentially estimate a function of the state, even for nonlinear nite-dimensional systems, that will carry enough information about the state to estimate it in Step 2. In order to 2 do so, it is sucient to introduce an auxiliary dynamical system fed by the measured output such that its solutions provide an estimation of this function of the state. Let R (resp. R , R and R ) denotes the set of real numbers (resp. non-negative, non-positive and non-zero real numbers). Let X be a Hilbert space. We denote L(X ) the set of all endomorphisms of X and L(X; R) the space of linear forms from X to R. Consider the abstract Cauchy problem on X = F ; (0) = ; (1) where F : D(F ) X ! X is a linear operator which is the generator of a strongly continuous semi-group denoted (T ) in L(X ) and 2 D(F ). Let (F ) = f 2 C j (F I ) 2 L(X )g denote the resolvent set of F . t t2R 0 Moreover, consider a bounded output operator y = H ; (2) where H 2 L(X; R) is bounded. Following the KKL methodology, we obtain the following proposition. Proposition 2.1. For all in (F )\ R , let T in L(X; R) be the operator de ned as T : X 3 7! H(F I ) 2 R : Then, the dynamical system z _ = z + y; (3) is an exponential observer for T . More precisely, for all ( ; z ) in D(F ) R, it yields for all t > 0 0 0 T (T ) z (t) = exp(t) (T ( ) z ) : (4) t 0 0 0 where z : R ! R is the solution of system (3) when y is given by (2) and initiated from z . + 0 Proof. Let be in D(F ). Equations (1){(3) yield T (T ) z (t) = T (FT ) z (t)HT t 0 t 0 t 0 dt = T (F I )T + T (T ) z (t) HT t 0 t 0 t 0 = (T (T ) z (t)); t 0 where the last equality follows since T (FI ) = H. Hence, (4) follows by integrating in time the former equation. Keeping in mind that is negative in Proposition 2.1, (4) implies lim jT (T ) z (t)j = 0: (5) t 0 t!+1 This ends the proof. Remark 1. The operator T is solution to the Sylvester equation : FT = T +H: (6) We recognize here the algebraic equation which was already given in Luenberger seminal paper [14] and which becomes a nonlinear partial dierential equation in [1]. 3 2.2 Step 2: reconstruction of the entire state of the system According to step 1, we can easily estimate T for all in (F )\ R via the observer system (3). The idea of the KKL observer methodology is to consider the mapping T : X 7! R given by 7! (T ; : : : ;T ) which will be 1 p exponentially estimated along the trajectory of (1) via a bench of observers of the form (3). To solve the estimation problem, the question is to solve the inverse problem T = z (7) with the unknown in X . Let ImT = fT x j x 2 Xg be the image of T . Then (7) admits a solution only if z is in ImT . The former condition is in general too restrictive due to the fact that z is only an estimation of T and consequently may not be in ImT . A solution to overcome this problem is to replace the equality constraint (7) by the minimization problem minimize kT zk subject to 2 X: (8) The set of solutions of (8) is denoted by argmin kT zk . The following results can be found in [12, Chapter 2X 4]: • If T is injective, then (8) has at most one solution. • If z 2 ImT (ImT ) , then the set argmin kT zk is closed, convex and non-empty (in particular (8) 2X admits at least one solution). 1 1 • If T is bijective and admits a left inverse denoted T then the unique solution of (8) is (t) = T z(t). For nite dimensional systems, the injectivity of T is directly linked with an observability property of the dynamical system (1). Indeed, following [14], it can be shown that for nite dimensional systems, if the pair (F;H) is observable (in the sense that the Kalman observability matrix is full rank), then picking p pairwise distinct 's with p = dimX , then the obtained mapping T is invertible. In that case, a KKL observer can simply be obtained as 2 3 2 3 6 7 6 7 . 1 . . z _ = z + y ; (t) = T z(t): 4 5 4 5 In the in nite dimensional case, there is no hope that a nite number of 's can give all the information allowing to reconstruct the entire system's state. It is an open question to know if observability properties of the in nite dimensional system allows to obtain that a certain countable set of 's gives enough information. In that case, the minimization problem (8) becomes ill-posed. In other words, it may have no solution, or numerous solutions, and its solutions may depend on z in a non-continuous manner. In our case, z is an estimation of T . Hence, the minimizer of (8) may be very dierent of the real state . A typical approach to overcome this problem is to consider a Tikhonov regularization method in which the optimization problem (8) is slightly modi ed. This new minimization problem will have solutions close to the former one, and be well-posed. We recall the next proposition on which this method is based for the convenience of the reader. 4 p Proposition 2.2 ([12], Proposition 6.1). Given T in L(X; R ) and > 0, the minimization problem 2 2 minimize kT zk + k k subject to 2 X (9) admits a unique solution and is a continuous function of z in R . The choice of the regularization parameter is of the uttermost importance. Indeed, as ! +1, the solution of (9) goes to zero. Conversely, as ! 0, the problem (9) goes closer to the ill-posed problem (8). A compromise shall be made. In practice, is chosen experimentally, and is linked to the measure con dence: the more uncertain is the output y, the bigger is . We also have the following theoretical result, that describes what happens when goes to zero. Theorem 2.3 ([12, Theorem 6.1]). Let T in L(X; R ) and z 2 ImT . Let 2 X and the solution of (8) closest to . Let (z ) be a sequence in R converging to z. Let " = jz zj. Let ( ) be a sequence of regularization 0 n n2N n n n n2N parameters converging to zero. For any n 2 N, let be the solution of the problem (9) associated to z and . n n n Then, • jT z j ! 0; n n n!+1 • if ! 0; then jT z j = O(" ) and ! ; n n n n n!+1 n!+1 • if ! 0 and 2 (ImT ) ; then jT z j = O(" ) and j j = O(" ): n n n n n!+1 To summarize, a possible observer design of a given abstract Cauchy problem in the form (1) is then given by 2 3 2 3 6 7 6 7 > . > . . z _ = z + y 4 5 4 5 > . (10) 2 2 > (t) = argmin kT z(t)k + k k ; > 0 > 2X T = T ; : : : ;T ; T = H(F I ) ; i = 1; : : : ; p; 1 p i where the are pairwise distinct elements of (F )\ R . Note that despite the fact that this dynamical system is well-de ned for all abstract Cauchy problem in the form (1), its convergence to the real state is not guaranteed a priori and may be linked to observability properties. 3 Application to the crystallization process 3.1 Modeling the batch crystallization process In this subsection, a dynamical model representing the batch crystallization process and the concentration mea- surement is given. 3.1.1 Population balance equation In a rst step a batch crystallization process is modeled. We assume that the size of the crystals is described by a scalar parameter x (in m). For example, if the crystals are spherical, then x may represent their diameter. 5 1 3 Let us denote (t;) the Number Density Function in terms of the crystal size (NDF) at time t (in m :m ), so that (t; x)dx is the total amount of crystals in the reactor at time t with size between x and x (in m ). 1 2 Let [t ; t ] be the time window in which the crystallization process occurs. 0 1 We assume that the crystals never reach a speci c maximal allowable size denoted x during the experiment. max Typically this size can simply be related to the size of the reactor in which the crystallization occurs: 8t 2 [t ; t ]; (t; x ) = 0: (11) 0 1 max We assume that all the crystals appear at the same positive size x , and we denote u(t) the appearance rate min of new crystals at size x at time t. The function u quanti es the nucleation rate in the reactor. In [22], for min instance, an expression for the function u is given as u(t) = R (t)=G(t); where R is the overall rate of nucleation n n 1 3 1 expressed in s :m and G is the growth rate of the crystals in m:s . Note however that in our approach for NDF observation, we don't need to know precisely this expression. We do not use any model of u, and assume this quantity to be unknown. We have 8t 2 [t ; t ]; (t; x ) = u(t): (12) 0 1 min Finally, let G(t; x) > 0 be the growth rate of the crystals in m:s , in other words the rate at which a crystal of size x grows at time t. The population balance leads to 8t 2 (t ; t ); 8x 2 (x ; x ); @ (t; x) + @ (G )(t; x) = 0: (13) 0 1 min max t x By considering the McCabe assumption, we assume that G does not depend on x. In that case equation (13) becomes 8t 2 (t ; t ); 8x 2 (x ; x ); @ (t; x) + G(t)@ (t; x) = 0: (14) 0 1 min max t x Equation (14) is a time-varying one-dimensional transport equation. We also assume that at the beginning of the experiment, some seed particles are in the reactor. This yields 8x 2 [x ; x ]; (t ; x) = (x): min max 0 0 To summarize, the model of the NDF in a batch crystallization process is: @ (t; x) = G(t)@ (t; x) 8t 2 (t ; t ); 8x 2 (x ; x ) t x 0 1 min max (t ; x) = (x) 8x 2 [x ; x ] (15) 0 0 min max (t; x ) = u(t) 8t 2 [t ; t ] min 0 1 to which is added the other boundary condition in (11) which in our case is seen as a knowledge on the particular solution we wish to estimate. The following theorem states that system (15) of this model admits weak solution in L space and strong solution in H . 6 1 1 0 Theorem 3.1. Let t > t > 0; x > x > 0; 2 H (x ; x ); u 2 H (t ; t ); G 2 C ([t ; t ]; R ). 1 0 max min 0 min max 0 1 0 1 Assume that u(t ) = (x ). Then system (15) admits a unique solution 0 0 min 0 1 1 2 2 C ([t ; t ]; H (x ; x ))\ C ([t ; t ]; L (x ; x )): 0 1 min max 0 1 min max Moreover, for all (t; x) 2 [t ; t ] [x ; x ], 0 1 min max (x G(t)) if x x > G(t) 0 min (t; x) = (16) u G (G(t) x + x ) else. min where G : [t ; t ] 3 t 7! G( )d . 0 1 The proof of this theorem can be found in [6, Theorem 2.4] in the case G = 1, and can be easily adapted by means of a time reparametrization. It is worth noticing that this theorem does not take into account hypothesis (11). However, the following proposition holds. Proposition 3.2. Assume that the hypothesis of Theorem 3.1 are satis ed. Assume that there exists x 2 [x ; x ) min max such that (x) = 0 for all x 2 [x; x ]. If 0 max x + G(t ) < x ; (17) 1 max then (t; x) = 0 for all t 2 [t ; t ] and all x 2 [x + G(t ); x ]. 0 1 1 max Proof. Let t 2 [t ; t ] and x 2 [x + G(t ); x ]. Then 0 1 1 max x G(t ) > x > x : 1 min Consequently, according to (16), (t; x) = (x G(t)) = 0: Hence, one must choose t small enough so that the particles did not reach the size x . Roughly speaking, 1 max this means that the observer that we are going to design must estimate the state in small time, i.e. before the particles reach the size x . In the following, we always assume that (11) is satis ed. max 3.2 Concentration sensor modeling In the considered batch crystallization process, the measured outputs are the temperature and the solute concen- tration denoted C (t). These two measurements allow to obtain online estimation of the growth rate (i.e. G) and the third moment of the NDF. 3.2.1 Estimation of G The knowledge of the temperature and the solute concentration allows to obtain some approximation of the growth rate G . Indeed, following [29], a model of G can be given for all time t 2 [t ; t ] by 0 1 C (t) C (t) G(t) = k (18) C (t) where 7 1 • k is a known growth rate parameter (in m:s ), • C (t) is the solubility at time t (in kg of solute per kg of solvent), • C (t) is the solute concentration at time t (in kg of solute per kg of solvent). Since C (t) depends on the temperature at time t , the growth rate G of the crystals can be estimated online with the available sensors. Other model expressions of G are available in the literature, for more details one may refer to [16, 20]. 3.2.2 Estimation of the third moment of the NDF It is possible to link the solute concentration with the NDF. Indeed, for each t 2 R , let C (t) (in kg of solid per kg + s of solvent) be the solid concentration in the reactor at time t, in other words, the ratio between the total crystals mass in the reactor at time t and the solvent mass. Let (in kg.m ) be the density of the solute in solid phase and M the solvent mass (in kg). It yields: C (t) = V (t) s s where V (t) is the volume (in m ) occupied by the crystals at time t. Then the volume of a crystal with size x (in m) is simply V = k x where k is a volumetric shape factor (see e.g. [9, 26]). For example, k = =6 for spherical v v v crystals. The total volume of the crystals is then max V (t) = k (t; x)x dx s v min Hence, the solid concentration in the reactor can be expressed as follows. max s v 8t 2 [t ; t ]; C (t) = (t; x)x dx: (19) 0 1 s e x min Assume moreover that is a known parameter. This implies that we can associate to system (15) the mea- surement y de ned as max 8t 2 [t ; t ]; y(t) = (t; x)x dx: (20) 0 1 min From there, the observation problem we intend to solve is the following. From the knowledge of the output function y(t) and the growth rate, give an online estimation of the NDF. The purpose of the Section 3.4 is to propose a novel algorithm to solve this problem based on the KKL methodol- ogy which was described in Section 2. Note however that before implementing the observer an observability analysis can be carried out. 3.3 About the observability of the crystallization model In this section, we study how the third moment may help us to estimate the NDF. First, we have the following result. 8 Proposition 3.3. Let 2 (t ; t ]. Assume that there exists > 0 such that G(t) > for all t 2 [t ; t ]. Then for 0 1 0 1 0 4 all y 2 C (t ; ), there exists at most one function u 2 H (t ; ) such that the solution of (15) given by u and 0 0 = 0 satis es max y(t) = (t; x)x dx; 8t 2 [t ; ]: min In other words, Proposition 3.3 states that the map u 7! y is injective, where y denotes the third moment of the solution of (15) with null initial condition. Its proof can be found in appendix. Hence, one can hope that our method may reconstruct from y, at least when the initial condition is zero (i.e. there is no crystals at the beginning of the process). However, one can wonder what happens if the initial condition is not zero. Can we still reconstruct the state from the measurement of its third moment and the knowledge of its dynamics? In other words, is the map 7! y injective? If yes, then one can hope that our algorithm is robust, so that the estimation of the state converges to the actual NDF. Unfortunately, the answer is no. Indeed, we have the following proposition which is a slight modi cation of [30, Theorem 3.2.3] that we state in our own context only. For the convenience of the reader, its proof is given in appendix. Proposition 3.4. Let 2 (t ; t ]. Assume that there exists > 0 such that G(t) > for all t 2 [t ; t ]. There 0 1 0 1 exist in nitely many solutions of (15) with dierent initial conditions and boundary conditions that have the same third moment y 2 C (t ; ). We shall say that system (15) with measurement (20) is not observable. Thus, we cannot guarantee that our estimation of the NDF converges to the actual NDF. Despite this fact, our methodology should be able to reconstruct partially the actual NDF. Indeed, the linear function that maps the NDF to its third moment has rank 4. The image of this state-output mapping is sometimes called the observable part of the system (see e.g. [8]), due to the fact that an observer shall estimate at least the projection of the actual state on this subspace. See the proof in appendix for more details. 3.4 A dynamical observer from the concentration measurement Eventhough it was shown in the former section that the system is not observable, in this subsection, we show how the KKL observer approach can be employed on the considered model. Following the procedure given in Section 2, we consider a negative real number and the dynamical system z _ = z + y : (21) We must nd a mapping T which is estimated by this dynamical equation. We have the following proposition. 1 2 1 Proposition 3.5. Let T : C ([t ; t ]; L (x ; x )) 7! C ([t ; t ]) be the functional de ned as 0 1 min max 0 1 max T ( ) : t 7! a(t; x) (t; x)dx (22) min 9 where >@ a(t; x) + G(t)@ a(t; x) = a(t; x) + x 8t 2 (t ; t ); 8x 2 (x ; x ) t x 0 1 min max (23) a(t ; x) = 0 8x 2 [x ; x ] 0 min max a(t; x ) = 0 8t 2 [t ; t ]; min 0 1 then, along the solution of (21) which satis es (11) where y is given in (20), it yields for all t in [t ; t ] 0 1 T ( )(t) z(t) = exp(t)(T ( )(0) z ): (24) Proof. Using (15) and an integration by parts yields Z Z x x max max (T ( )(t) z(t)) = @ a(t; x) (t; x)dx G(t)a(t; x)@ (t; x)dx t x dt x x min min max z(t) x (t; x)dx min Z Z x x max max = @ a(t; x) (t; x)dx + G(t)@ a(t; x) (t; x)dx t x x x min min max max G(t) a(t; x) (t; x) z(t) x (t; x)dx: min min Hence, with (23) and also the boundary condition in (15) and (11), this implies (T ( )(t) z(t)) = (T ( )(t) z(t)): dt By integrating in time the former equation, we obtain (24). Consequently, for each negative we exponentially estimate the functional T (t). It is interesting to remark that no information on the nucleation rate is needed to obtain this estimation. The state observer is given as (10), after a choice of the regularization parameter . 4 Numerical simulations In this subsection numerical simulations are carried out. Let (x ) be a uniform discretization of the space j 16j6N interval (x ; x ) with space step x and (t ) be a uniform discretization of the time interval (t ; t ) min max k 16k6N 0 1 with time step t. We x N = N = 100. Let ( ) be the considered negative values of . An approximation x t j 16i6p of (T )(t ) is given by x a where a is an approximation of a (t ; x ) (solution of (23)) and k i;j;k j;k i;j;k k j i i j=1 an approximation of (t ; x ). The transport equation which describes the crystallization process is simulated j;k k j via the method of characteristics. We consider the system (15) with G as in (18) with a null initial condition = 0 and a boundary condition similar to a truncated normal distribution reaching its maximum at t = 3 s and with a compact support [0; 6] (see Fig. 1a). The unique solution of this system is drawn in Fig. 1c (solid line), and the corresponding growth rate is drawn in Fig. 1b. 4.1 Step 1: reconstruction of a function of the state Following the methodology developed in Section 2, we rst try to estimate the function T ( ) of the state via the dynamical system (21) for some xed negative values of . All along the simulation of (15), we compute y and 10 1 2 0.9 1.8 0.8 1.6 0.7 1.4 0.6 1.2 0.5 1 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0 0 0123456789 10 0123456789 10 (a) Boundary condition u due to the nucleation (b) Growth rate G, given by (18) 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0123456789 10 (c) Simulation of the NDF Figure 1: Numerical simulation of the process with (x ; x ) = (0; 10), (t ; t ) = (0; 10) and N = N = 100. min max 0 1 x t 11 estimate the solution of (23) via the method of characteristics. We integrate the solution of (21) with the rst order Euler's method. Then we plot the evolution of the relative error between z and T ( ) in Fig. 2 for some values of . One can check that the error goes to zero as t ! +1. Moreover, the bigger is jj, the faster is the convergence. This is due to the exponential convergence of z T ( ) to zero given by (4). Hence, we are able to approximate any function T ( ) of the state. Now, we can move to the second part of the methodology of Section 2. 25 200 25 50 $T (t)$ 180 45 $z(t)$ 20 20 160 40 140 35 15 15 120 30 10 100 10 25 80 20 5 5 60 15 40 10 0 0 20 5 -5 0 -5 0 012345 012345 01234 01234 25 50 25 50 45 45 20 20 40 40 35 35 15 15 30 30 10 25 10 25 20 20 5 5 15 15 10 10 0 0 5 5 -5 0 -5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Figure 2: Convergence of T ( ) z to zero for dierent values of . We choose z(0) 6= 0 arbitrarily. The bigger is jj, the faster is the convergence. By means of a linear regression, one can estimate the convergence rate of the relative error to zero: 7:4t 8:2t 14:2t 32:9t O(e ) if = 0; 1; O(e ) if = 1; O(e ) if = 10; O(e ) if = 100: 4.2 Step 2: reconstruction of the entire state of the system Following Step 1, we estimate simultaneously numerous functions T ( ) which correspond to dierent values < 0. These estimations are denoted z . The aim of this section is to estimate the state from the knowledge of (z ) . 16i6p Then, we choose a regularization parameter > 0 and solve the discrete version of the quadratic minimization problem (9) at each time step, that is for each time t , nd that k j;k 16j6N 2 2 minimize x a z (t ) + : (25) i;j;k j;k k j;k 16i6p;16j6N 16j6N 16i6p 16j6N x x x This is a quadratic minimization problem, which we solve via an interior-point method (see e.g. [5, Chapter III.11]. We need to x an initial condition to apply this algorithm. Following a continuation method, we choose as an initial condition at time t the minimum value obtained at time t , transported during a time t at speed k k1 G(t ). k1 The choice of parameters p, ; : : : ; and and their in uence are investigated in the paragraphs below. 1 p • Choice of the p and ( ). Note that the matrix a may be injective only if p > N , that i i;j;k x 16i6p;16j6N is if the discretization in is thinner than in x. Therefore, we x p = 2N = 200. Moreover, even if the matrix (a ) is injective, a regularization method is needed to left-inverse it. Indeed, for all t 2 (t ; t ), i;j;k i;j 0 1 the operator max 2 2 L (x ; x ) 3 7! 7! a (t; x) (x)dx 2 L ( ; ) min max min max min is compact (as an integral operator). Hence, even if it is injective, its inverse is not continuous. The matrix (a ) is a discretization of this operator. Then, the more the discretization is thinner, the more it is i;j;k i;j ill-conditioned. This emphasizes the necessity of using a regularization method. In Fig. 3, we plot the estimation of the NDF for dierent values of ( ). For large values of jj, z converges quickly to T . However, it appears that functions a carry less information for large values of jj, so that the map T is more dicult to inverse. This explains Fig. 3b, on which the estimation is worst than on Fig. 3c. On the contrary, for small values of jj, it seems that functions a carry more information, since the estimation is similar on Fig. 3a and Fig. 3c at t = 10 s. However, we also see a peaking phenomenon (for t 6 5 s on Fig. 3a), due to the fact that z is slower to converge to T than for large values of jj. Thus, one must nd a compromise for the choice of ( ): take large values for fast convergence and avoiding peaking, and small values for ecient estimation. • Choice of the regularization parameter . The regularization parameter must be chosen numerically, in order to nd a compromise between the mini- mization of the norm of the state, and the minimization of the gap T z. This compromise can be interpreted as a measurement reliability. Indeed, if the measurement has a small uncertainty, then we choose a small . On the contrary, if the measurement is highly uncertain, then we x a large value of in order to regularize the solution. In Fig. 4, we plot the actual NDF and its estimation at dierent times, for dierent values of , and with or without measurement noise. Measurement noise is xed at 2% of the maximal value of the output on the time interval. For small values of and/or with measurement noise, we see that a peaking phenomenon appear: this is due to a lack of regularization of the solution. On the contrary, if is too large, then the minimization of the norm of the state takes too much importance in the minimization problem, and is too attenuated. 13 1.6 1 0.9 1.4 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (a) ( ) [10;1] (b) ( ) [100;10] i i 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (c) ( ) [100;1] Figure 3: In uence of ( ) on the reconstruction of the CSD. i 16i6p 14 1.8 3 1.6 2.5 1.4 1.2 2 1.5 0.8 0.6 1 0.4 0.5 0.2 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (a) = 0:05; = 0 (b) = 0:05; = 2% 1.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 0.8 1.2 0.6 1 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (c) = 0:1; = 0 (d) = 0:1; = 2% 1 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (e) = 0:2; = 0 (f ) = 0:2; = 2% Figure 4: In uence of the regularization parameter and measurement noise on the reconstruction of the CSD 15 5 Conclusion In this paper a new observer has been introduced to estimate the Crystal Size Distribution from the measurements of the solute concentration, temperature and a model of the growth rate. No model of the nucleation rate is needed. This approach is based on the use of Kazantzis-Kravaris/Luenberger observer and a Tikhonov regularization procedure. The numerical results obtained are promising. Even though, the knowledge of the solute concentration alone does not allow to accurately reconstruct the full CSD as shown by our observability analysis, we believe that this tool could be used in addition with supplementary information given by other sensors (for instance FBRM ). This approach will be evaluated on experiments in a future research project. Appendix: proofs of Propositions 3.3 and 3.4. Assume that G > > 0. Let 2 (t ; t ] and u 2 H (t ; ). Let be the solution of (15) with initial condition 0 1 0 and boundary condition u. We introduce a time reparametrization t = G(s)ds, which is well de ned since ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G > . Let , u ~ and y ~ be such that (t) = (t), u ~(t) = u(t) and y ~(t) = y(t) for all t 2 [t ; t ]. Then 0 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ @ (t; x) = @ (t; x) ~ x < t (t ; x) = (x) (26) 0 0 ~ ~ (t; x ) = u ~(t) min max ~ ~ and y ~(t) = (t; x)x dx. Since the observability properties are not aected by the time reparametrization, one min can investigate observability properties of the system (26) instead of (15). Therefore, one can assume without loss 4 4 of generality that G = 1 in the rest of the proof. Since u 2 H (t ; ), we have y 2 C (t ; ). Equation (11) and 0 0 system (15) yield max max 0 2 3 y = 3 x (; x)dx x (; x) min min max 2 3 = 3 x (; x)dx + x u; (27) min min max max (2) 2 3 0 y = 6 x (; x)dx + 3 x (; x) + x u min min min max 2 3 0 = 6 x (; x)dx + 3x u + x u ; (28) min min min max (3) x 2 0 3 (2) max y = 6 (; x)dx 6 [x (; x)] + 3 x u + x u min min min min max 2 0 3 (2) = 6 (; x)dx + 6x u + 3x u + x u ; (29) min min min min (4) max 0 2 (2) 3 (3) y = 6 [ (; x)] + 6x u + 3x u (t) + x u min x min min min 0 2 (2) 3 (3) = 6u + 6x u + 3x u + x u : (30) min min min End of the proof of Proposition 3.3. By hypothesis, = 0. Consequently, Equations (27){(29) yield 0 3 y (t ) = x u(t ) 0 0 < min (2) 2 3 0 y (t ) = 3x u(t ) + x u (t ) 0 0 0 min min (3) 2 0 3 (2) y (t ) = 6x u(t ) + 3x u (t ) + x u (t ); 0 min 0 0 0 min min 16 0 (2) which is a triangular system with non vanishing diagonal since x > 0. Hence u(t ), u (t ) and u (t ) are deter- min 0 0 0 mined by y. Moreover, on [t ; ], u satis es Equation (30) which is a 3rd order ordinary dierential equation. Hence, according to the Cauchy-Lipschitz theorem, there exits a unique solution u to this problem. Thus y determines u uniquely, that u 7! y is injective. (4) End of the proof of Proposition 3.4. Substituting the boundary condition in equation (30) with u = 0 yields y = 0 identically on [t ; ]. Hence y is a polynomial function of degree less or equal than 3. Thus the linear function that maps any solution of (15) with null boundary condition to its third moment has rank 4. Since lies in an in nite dimensional vector space, we get by the rank-nullity theorem that its kernel is non-trivial, i.e. the state-output map 7! y is not injective, and the system has a 4-dimensional observable part. Note that Proposition 3.4 relies deeply on Hypothesis (11). Hence the non-injectivity of the measurement is due to the fact that the system is observed on a too small time interval. If the system was observed on [t ; +1), then one could show with similar argues an injectivity result. References [1] V. Andrieu and L. Praly. On the existence of a kazantzis{kravaris/luenberger observer. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 45:432{456, 02 2006. [2] P. Bernard. Observer Design for Nonlinear Systems, volume 479 of Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences. Springer International Publishing, 2019. [3] P. Bernard and V. Andrieu. Luenberger observers for nonautonomous nonlinear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 69:270{281, 2019. [4] B. Biscans. Cristallisation en solution - Proc ed es et types d'appareils. Techniques de l'ing enieur. G enie des proc ed es, J2788 v2:1{25, 2013. [5] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2004. [6] J. Coron. Control and Nonlinearity. Mathematical surveys and monographs. American Mathematical Society, [7] C. A. Dorao and H. A. Jakobsen. Numerical calculation of the moments of the population balance equation. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 196:619{633, 2006. [8] G. Haine. Recovering the observable part of the initial data of an in nite-dimensional linear system with skew-adjoint generator. Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems, 26(3):435{462, 2014. [9] H. Hulburt and S. Katz. Some problems in particle technology: A statistical mechanical formulation. Chemical Engineering Science, 19(8):555{574, 1964. 17 [10] V. John, I. Angelov, A. A. Oncul, and D. Th evenin. Techniques for the reconstruction of a distribution from a nite number of its moments. Chemical Engineering Science, 62:2890{2904, 2007. [11] N. Kazantzis and C. Kravaris. Nonlinear observer design using lyapunov's auxiliary theorem. Systems & Control Letters, 34(5):241{247, 1998. [12] M. Kern. M ethodes num eriques pour les probl emes inverses. Math ematiques et statistiques. ISTE editions, [13] N. Lebaz, A. Cockx, M. Sp erandio, and J. Morchain. Reconstruction of a distribution from a nite number and its moments : A comparitive study in the case of depolymerization process. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 84:326{337, 2016. [14] D. G. Luenberger. Observing the state of a linear system. IEEE Transactions on Military Electronics, 8(2):74{ 80, April 1964. [15] D. G. Luenberger. An introduction to observers. IEEE Transactions on automatic control, 16(6):596{602, [16] A. Mersmann, A. Eble, and C. Heyer. Crystal growth. In A. Mersmann, editor, Crystallization Technology Handbook, pages 48{111. Marcel Dekker Inc., 2001. [17] A. Mesbah, A. E. Huesman, H. J. Kramer, Z. K. Nagy, and P. M. Van den Hof. Real-time control of a semi-industrial fed-batch evaporative crystallizer using dierent direct optimization strategies. AIChE journal, 57(6):1557{1569, 2011. [18] A. Mesbah, A. E. Huesman, H. J. Kramer, and P. M. Van den Hof. A comparison of nonlinear observers for output feedback model-based control of seeded batch crystallization processes. Journal of Process Control, 21(4):652{666, 2011. [19] S. Motz, S. Mannal, and E. D. Gilles. State estimation in batch crystallization using reduced population models. Journal of Process Control, 18(3-4):361{374, 2008. [20] J. Mullin. Crystallization. Elsevier, 4 edition, 2001. [21] Z. K. Nagy and R. D. Braatz. Robust nonlinear model predictive control of batch processes. AIChE Journal, 49(7):1776{1786, 7 2003. [22] Z. K. Nagy, G. Fevotte, H. Kramer, and L. L. Simon. Recent advances in the monitoring, modelling and control of crystallization systems. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 91(10):1903{1922, 2013. [23] H. M. Omar and S. Rohani. Crystal Population Balance Formulation and Solution Methods : A Review. Crystal Growth & Design, 17:4028{4041, 2017. 18 [24] I. B. Poblete, C. A. Castor, M. Nele, and J. C. Pinto. On-line monitoring of chord distributions in liquid{liquid dispersions and suspension polymerizations by using the focused beam re ectance measurement technique. Polymer Engineering and Science, 56:309{318, 2016. [25] M. Porru and L. Ozkan. Monitoring of batch industrial crystallization with growth, nucleation, and agglom- eration. part 2: Structure design for state estimation with secondary measurements. Industrial & engineering chemistry research, 56(34):9578{9592, 2017. [26] A. D. Randolph and M. A. Larson. Theory of particulate processes. Academic Press, 2 edition, 1988. [27] S. Scheler. Ray tracing as a supportive tool for interpretation of fbrm signals from spherical particles. Chemical Engineering Science, 101:503{514, 2013. [28] M. Tucsnak and G. Weiss. Observation and Control for Operator Semigroups. Birkh auser Advanced Texts Basler Lehrbuc her. Birkh auser Basel, 2009. [29] B. Uccheddu, K. Zhang, H. Hammouri, and G. F evotte. Design of a csd observer during batch cooling crystal- lization dealing with uncertain nucleation parameters. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 44(1):10460{10465, 2011. [30] J. A. W. Vissers. Model-based estimation and control methods for batch cooling crystallizers. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 2012.
Mathematics – arXiv (Cornell University)
Published: Jun 12, 2020
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.